[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghav Alias Raghu vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2026
111
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-822-2025
DECIDED ON: 11.03.2026
RAGHAV ALIAS RAGHU .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking
grant of regular bail, in case, FIR No.136, dated 06.09.2024, under
Section 21 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Special Task Force,
Phase-4, Mohali.
2. After hearing the submissions addressed by counsel for the
petitioner, on 16.01.2025, following order was passed:-
"2. Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends
that petitioner is a young boy of 21 years of age and
has been implicated in a false case. To substantiate his
plea of bail, counsel argues that the alleged recovery
of 260 grams of Heroin, which in fact is little more
than the non-commercial quantity i.e. 250 grams,
leave room for possible error in weighing the
contraband, which would be demonstrated at the time
of trial.
3. Counsel further submits that petitioner is not
involved in any other case of similar nature.
Therefore, he prays that for this reason also, petitioner
1 of 4
be granted one chance to rise up and rehabilitate
himself as a normal person in the society.
4. Besides, while referring to the report dated
30.09.2024, prepared by Dr. Rajan Mittal, MBBS,
M.D. (Radiodiagnosis), Civil Hospital, Ferozepur,
counsel submits that wife of the petitioner is pregnant
and due date of delivery given by the Doctor is
01.02.2025.
5. On the other hand, all the factual assertions
addressed by counsel for the petitioner are not
disputed by learned State counsel. However, while
opposing the prayer of the petitioner for concession of
regular bail, learned State counsel submits that
petitioner has been there inside jail only for three
months, so considering the plea for regular bail at this
stage, would be premature.
However, he expresses his inability in conforming the
factum of the expected date of delivery of the wife of
the petitioner i.e. 01.02.2025.
6. Be that as it may, for the time being, this Court
considers to release the petitioner on interim regular
bail for a period of three months from the date of his
release from the jail, by keeping the present petition
pending before this Court. During this period, the
conduct of the petitioner shall be examined as per the
report submitted by the learned State counsel.
7. Petitioner is ordered to be released on interim
regular bail in this case for a period of three months,
subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ Chief Judicial
Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate
concerned, if not required in any other case. He is
directed to surrender back before the learned Trial
Court/ Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Illaqa Magistrate/
Duty Magistrate concerned, on or before 21.04.2025.
8. List again on 28.04.2025, for further
consideration.
Meanwhile, learned State counsel shall direct
the concerned authority to confirm the factum of
pregnancy of the wife of the petitioner, and in case,
same is found to be false, immediately thereafter, an
application for cancellation of interim bail shall be
moved by the State in the present case."
3. When petitioner and his co-accused, Amrik Singh @ Amriki
@ Bata, were apprehended together, 260 grams of heroin was recovered
from their possession.
2 of 4
4. Petitioner was granted the concession of interim bail by this
Court, vide order dated 16.01.2025, on account of the pregnancy of his
wife. Thereafter, he was again released on interim bail, vide order dated
13.11.2025.
5. Although petitioner has remained in custody for a period of
more than 11 months, but learned State counsel has raised a serious
objection by submitting that after grant of interim bail by this Court,
during the period from 19.02.2025 to 16.04.2025, petitioner was found to
be in contact with another accused, namely Shivpreet Singh @ Siva, who
is also involved in NDPS cases.
It has also been pointed out by learned State counsel that
petitioner had contacted the said accused as many as 120 times during the
aforementioned period.
6. This Court has perused the status report dated 17.02.2026 as
well as the call detail records of the mobile phones of the petitioner and
the said accused, Shivpreet Singh @ Siva.
7. Although this Court could have considered the prayer for
grant of bail to the petitioner, however, in view of the nature of the
objection raised by learned State counsel and with a view to send an
appropriate message to the youth in the State of Punjab, it is considered
necessary to observe that petitioner was not expected to misuse the
concession of interim bail, by maintaining frequent contact with other
persons involved in NDPS cases.
3 of 4
8. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed at this stage.
9. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to file a fresh
petition seeking regular bail, after a period of about four months from
today.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
11.03.2026 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
